Office of Disciplinary Counsel v. Aguilar

 Annotate this Case
Download PDF
Electronically Filed Supreme Court SCAD-10-0000194 18-MAR-2011 10:47 AM SCAD-10-0000194 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF HAWAI'I OFFICE OF DISCIPLINARY COUNSEL, Petitioner, vs. DANILO T. AGUILAR, Respondent. ORIGINAL PROCEEDING (ODC 10-070-8904) ORDER OF DISBARMENT (By: Recktenwald, C.J., Nakayama, Acoba and Duffy, JJ., and Intermediate Court of Appeals Chief Judge Nakamura, assigned by reason of vacancy) Upon consideration of the Office of Disciplinary Counsel s Petition for Issuance of Reciprocal Discipline Notice, our December 22, 2010 Notice and Order, Respondent Danilo T. Aguilar s lack of response to the notice and order, and the record, it appears Respondent Aguilar was disbarred by the United States District Court for the District of Hawai'i on November 24, 2010 after conviction upon 2 counts of money laundering. It further appears Respondent Aguilar was summarily suspended from practice by the Supreme Court of Guam on September 10, 2010. It further appears that Respondent Aguilar does not maintain a practice in this jurisdiction and delaying the effective date of this order for thirty days, as provided by Rule 2.16(c) of the Rules of the Supreme Court of the State of Hawai'i (RSCH), would serve no purpose. Therefore, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Respondent Danilo T. Aguilar is disbarred, effective upon entry of this order. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that, in addition to any other requirements for reinstatement imposed by the Rules of the Supreme Court of the State of Hawai'i, Respondent Aguilar shall pay all costs of these proceedings as approved upon timely submission of a bill of costs. IT IS FINALLY ORDERED that Respondent Aguilar shall, within ten (10) days after the date of this order, file with this court an affidavit in full compliance with RSCH Rule 2.16(d). DATED: Honolulu, Hawai'i, March 18, 2011. /s/ Mark E. Recktenwald /s/ Paula A. Nakayama /s/ Simeon R. Acoba, Jr. /s/ James E. Duffy, Jr. /s/ Craig H. Nakamura 2

Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.